On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > There very much is. Consider a thread that hits a WARN() and then panics. Then > somewhere in the panic code the thread hits another WARN() ... and then panics > again. Previously this would have caused the system to "finish" panick'ing. > Now it makes the system hang. > Then we're back to square one which is what is obviously the intent of your patch and the comment that goes along with it: we want to clear panic_on_warn once and not allow multiple panic(). So why not just add the necessary synchronization to make sure that happens when WARN() happens on two cpus simultaneously?
